R v Norris - [2012] QCA 57

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Norris [2012] QCA 57

PARTIES:

R
v
NORRIS, Jemma Belle
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 315 of 2011
DC No 110 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2012

JUDGES:

Muir JA and Margaret Wilson AJA and Applegarth J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2.    Appeal against sentence allowed.

3.    Sentence varied by reducing to three years the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 2 of the indictment.

4.    Sentence varied by reducing to two years the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 3 of the indictment.

5.    The date the appellant is to be released on parole is 2 November 2012.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed with an offensive instrument – where sentencing judge characterised the offences as “street violence” – where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment on the first count and three years imprisonment on the second count, with parole release fixed after serving 18 months – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Brand [2006] QCA 525, cited
R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, discussed
R v Kinersen-Smith & Connor; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 153, cited
R v Neal [2012] QCA 12, cited
R v Neilson [2011] QCA 369, cited

COUNSEL:

D C Shepherd for the applicant
S P Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of Applegarth J and with the orders he proposes.

MARGARET WILSON AJA: I agree with the orders proposed by Applegarth J and with his Honour’s reasons for judgment.

APPLEGARTH J: On 20 July 2011 the applicant, then aged 19, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed with an offensive instrument. On 2 November 2011 she was sentenced to imprisonment for five years on the first count and three years imprisonment on the second count, with a parole eligibility date of 2 May 2013 (after 18 months). The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences on the ground that they are manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the offences

At about 12.30 am on 11 April 2010 the two complainants and two of their friends were travelling in a car along the Gold Coast highway. They decided to stop at a service station to obtain some food. The applicant, who was heavily…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Norris

Details

AGLC: R v Norris [2012] QCA 57
Case: [2012] QCA 57
Decision Date: 20 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Norris, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, following a guilty plea to one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and another count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed with an offensive instrument. The sentencing judge characterised the offences as instances of street violence and sentenced the applicant to five years imprisonment for the first count and three years for the second count, with parole eligibility set after 18 months. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The primary focus was on whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The court considered the nature of the offences, the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the principles of sentencing, particularly those relating to street violence and the need for deterrence and community protection.

The court found that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to the mitigating factors and had not adequately considered the principle of proportionality. The court also found that the parole eligibility period was too short, considering the sentence length. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied. The term of imprisonment on the first count was reduced to two years, and on the second count, it was reduced to three years, with parole eligibility set for 2 November 2012.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2. Appeal against sentence allowed.

3. Sentence varied by reducing to three years the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 2 of the indictment.

4. Sentence varied by reducing to two years the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 3 of the indictment.

5. The date the appellant is to be released on parole is 2 November 2012.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Norris [2012] QCA 57
PARTIES:	R v NORRIS, Jemma Belle (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 315 of 2011 DC No 110 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	20 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 March 2012
JUDGES:	Muir JA and Margaret Wilson AJA and Applegarth J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 2. Appeal against sentence allowed. 3. Sentence varied by reducing to three years the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 2 of the indictment. 4. Sentence varied by reducing to two years the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 3 of the indictment. 5. The date the appellant is to be released on parole is 2 November 2012.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed with an offensive instrument – where sentencing judge characterised the offences as “street violence” – where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment on the first count and three years imprisonment on the second count, with parole release fixed after serving 18 months – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Brand [2006] QCA 525, cited R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, discussed R v Kinersen-Smith & Connor; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 153, cited R v Neal [2012] QCA 12, cited R v Neilson [2011] QCA 369, cited
COUNSEL:	D C Shepherd for the applicant S P Vasta for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent